memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Priority Alpha Target
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete " ". *If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page. Deletion rationale Article appears to only be based on publicity material. - 01:02, February 3, 2017 (UTC) Discussion Comment I really don't see how those two pages can be an acceptable source for the name Io Facility, but not be considered a production source and therefore unused production material. Seems like you can't have it both ways. Unrelated other comment: as part of the promotion campaign this viral stunt definitely warrant us documenting it, at least on the STID page. This case is pretty much sui generis, so I don't see much harm having unused production material type articles on it, should that help us document it better. (not saying that should happen, just that it seems acceptable) Because it's not like what deserves to fall in that category has ever been completely defined. Sure, we've recently come to agree that unused script and prop references can go there and that's all the new unused material articles that get created these days, but beyond that the category has from the very start contained a few oddballs too. -- Capricorn (talk) 02:58, February 3, 2017 (UTC) :This is a tier 1 background/production resource, which means it can be used for naming things, and we should have something on the promotional campaign, but making pages for details in the report that was part of the campaign is like making pages for characters in books. This was never meant to be used on screen, and it was used for its intended purpose, so it's not unused production material. - 03:42, February 3, 2017 (UTC) But being eligible for that provision means they have to be considered "Materials from a production", ie "production material", and the fact that they weren't used in the film makes them unused production material. (btw, calling them production material is a dubious assertion in itself, we don't know they didn't just give some random outfit a summary of the film and said "do something viral") And admittedly this is a different kind of thing from what we usually accept as unused production material, but what does belong there has never really been clearly defined, there just are a few precedents where we decided that something seemed interesting enough that we chose to accomodate rather than vote delete. Note that you once suggested that the category containing those articles be named "Supplementary material", which actually is more inclusive given some of the more idiosyncratic articles collected there. Ultimately we looked at a bunch of imperfect names and chose another one as the least worst, but it's telling that the closest thing to a policy on this stuff is arguably the name of the category that collects them. (not that I have much of a problem with that lack of formal policy, setting precedents case by case works well for such unusual content) Also, this seems fundamentally different from book characters, even if the material seem superficially fiction-like. Being a prop for promotion those two pages have more in common with film posters then with say the tie-in comics. In conclusion, I'm not saying that policy demands us to have pages on this stuff, merely that policy on this front isn't specific enough to say that they shouldn't. I think we can just decide here and now if it would be useful. But if we don't, I think the resource policy would need to be tweaked in order to still allow Io Facility -- Capricorn (talk) 16:50, February 3, 2017 (UTC) :The resource policy only says that this information can be used as background information, not how it should be used, other than saying tiers 1 & 2 can be used for naming unnamed things. I think keeping the instructions there vague is, for now at least, a good thing. Promotional material is considered to from the production since, even if the project was farmed out to another company, someone at CBS or Bad Robot had to appove of it. The connection to the production isn't as good as it was back when TMP was being made, but there still is a connection. :My reasoning for likening this to the novels is that this wasn't meant to be used on screen. As far as I know, everything in unused production material was at one point meant to be used on screen, and then for some reason wasn't. As far as we know, the report was never meant to be used on screen, so we shouldn't be creating articles about its contents, like we don't create articles about the content of a novel. :The difference I see with using the report to name the Io Facility but not to create a bunch of articles based on other bits of information in it is that the facility is seen in the film, and this report is good background information about that subject. Knowing that John Harrison was a "Priority Alpha" target is good background information for his article as well, but we shouldn't have an article on the subject of "Priority Alpha" becuase it's something that wasn't ever meant for the screen. If you're looking for where the line should be on articles like this, I think asking if the information was ever intended to be "canon" is a good place to start. - 17:38, February 3, 2017 (UTC) There's definatly already articles of which you could say in one sense or another that they were never meant to be canon. I find this hardly surprising, because the origins of that class of articles lied in the fact that in the very early days of the wiki the boundaries of canon were a bit fuzzy, but then once we matured on that people couldn't get themselves to delete them and found a way to grandfather them in - it's inevitable that that would have lead to a there being a decent variety in types of cases. As for some examples, I guess the first one to come to mind would be this, or this. And among more recent creations, we have placeholders, and some things that were mentioned in the script but as a descriptive anology instead of as a reference. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:42, February 4, 2017 (UTC) :Anything in a series bible is more or less meant to be "canon", at least while the first few episodes are being written, so that's fair game. Materials about developing something that was used on screen are also fair game. Placeholders are a bit weird, since sometimes they don't get replaced by the final draft. Unused production material might not be the best category for it, but I'm not sure where else it would go other than the "top" production category if it wasn't in that one. The last two are about pop culture references in Trek, and have been categorized as such. The Beatles seems to have been intended to be used on screen at some point and then wasn't, so it remains unused as well as a pop culture reference. - 18:46, February 5, 2017 (UTC) Admin resolution * Kept. Augmented to be a real world article. It should be included somehow, even if just as a marketing tool.--Alan del Beccio (talk) 14:01, June 23, 2017 (UTC)